in Uncategorized

Free Speech and Consequences

So I got a live one in the comments from yesterday’s post. In the interest of celebrating asininity through mockery, I thought I’d share it with you. The words of the imbecile have been bolded for your protection. 

The anonymous heckler begins thusly:

hey there you free speech phony, yeah right…YOU!!!and pull your pants up!!


Pardon?

you are a hypocrite liar who publicly preaches free speech (except when it is something with which you disagree)but who really hates open discourse.

Nice to know you know what motivates me – my “secret hatred” for open discourse. That’s why I’m letting your comment stay on my blog for all the world to see. It’s all part of the plan, which is presumably being dictated to me by my Zionist masters.  Or the Rothschilds. Or Colonel Sanders before he went t-ts up.

let’s see how stupid you people really are: (rules of the truly stupid souless morons):


When calling someone stupid, wouldn’t a semblance of proper grammar and punctuation add some heft to your case?

1. anyone who might say, “hey, you have a black mark on your {record}{shirt} {soul}” is a racist devil to be destroyed.
If i say “that black mark on your record is one ugly baby” I should have my gonads removed by a team of man hating lesbian trasgendered half elf midgets with a speech impediment
.
Why must you inflict your own strange prejudices on me, since what you say bears no semblance to anything in my preceding post?
Absent the bizarre slurs, Anonymous is actually making my point, which was that Buttars was likely trying to use the word “black” as a synonym for “foul,” much in the same way my troglodyte critic does. Indeed, had Buttars said “that black mark on your record is one ugly baby,” nobody would have noticed. The problem is that he didn’t explain himself and, by being belligerent, made the situation worse, not better. 
Pay attention to which media outlets are pumping up this story. These are the enemies of free speech.

I’m not a huge fan of most media outlets, but taking someone to account for what they say is one of the primary benefits of free speech. Buttars can say anything he likes, and the media is free to call him a racist. Free speech only suffers when one side or the other is forbidden to speak.  

2. Only black people can use the word “lynched”, even if they live in Lynchberg, Tenn. or Lynchberg, Va. And they should be fired if they aren’t black. All whites who are named Lynch must be sent to a concentration camp run by …. you get the idea.

I do. And it’s a stupid idea, one which you won’t find in anything I wrote. My problem was that Buttars’ description of his critics as a “hate lynch mob” was racially incendiary, especially given the interpretation attached to his previous remarks. I’m not calling for Buttars to resign, be disciplined, or “sent to a concentration camp,” or whatever words you want to put into the mouth of the straw man you’re pretending is me. 
I’m just calling it stupid. 
Under the First Amendment, I have that right. Surely someone like you who “publicly preaches free speech” would be just fine with that .  
3. If i say “white lie” I am a racist who must be destroyed, unless I am a homo, woman, oriental, indio, or….anything besides a white male.

If you say so. Nobody else did. And while I’m familiar with most of your slurs, I have no idea what an “indio” is. Perhaps some sort of fragrance…?
This reminds me of the lynching of Don Imus. And that was concocted to discipline the talk show host roster to not speak ill of Hillary.

Glad you brought up Imus, because this is my biggest bugaboo where free speech is concerned. 
I remember back after 9/11, when Bill Maher lost his television show on ABC because he implied that Americans were cowards in comparison to the 9/11 hijackers. That’s really not what he said, and he probably got a bum rap. But Maher defenders insisted that if he lost his show, it would be a grotesque violation of the First Amendment. It was then that I realized just how distorted the debate has become. 
Someone please show me where the First Amendment guarantees a right to a network television show? 
See, I’ve never had my own show on ABC. Ever. And unlike Maher, I’ve never implied that Americans were more cowardly than the hijackers. And I’ve never called anyone a “nappy headed ho” in proper Imus fashion, yet I remain deprived of my own national radio program. A good constitutional lawyer should be able to get me the best timeslot, a host of advertisers, and a zillion dollar syndication deal. 
This is deeply, deeply silly. 
Imus, Maher, and any other blowhard who loses his or her show will do so because of the demands of the open market, not because of governmental prior restraint. To presume otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. The First Amendment only guarantees that you won’t go to jail because of what you say, and that the government can’t stop you from saying it. 
That’s it. 
It doesn’t give you the right to my time, my attention, or my money. It also doesn’t make you immune from criticism, which comes as a surprise to many on the left who are aghast when conservatives fight back. It also comes as a surprise to my anonymous critic, who presumes that Buttars has the right to avoid being excoriated for saying something stupid. Sorry, but the First Amendment belongs to me as much as it belongs to Chris Buttars. 
Seems this current operation is designed to derail buttars efforts (may god bless him) to stop the deviant marriage registry in slc.

Even in death, Colonel Sanders is a very busy man. 
Skiing, Guitar Hero, Chris Buttars
Watching McCain Flail

Leave a Reply

14 Comments

  1. Great post and response. I’ve seen this same poster’s verbatim response multiple times elsewhere in any Chris Buttars news stories or blog posts.

  2. I’m curious as to what “right thing” people are trying to prevent Buttars from doing. But then, maybe I don’t want to know.

  3. Stallion: I am fine if you want to leave anon’s comment up for the purpose of mocking it, but I don’t think that you should leave it up to demonstrate your free speech bona fides. You are not the state, and this blog is not a public forum. If some nitwit barges into your living room while you are in the middle of a conversation with someone else, you don’t listen politely and pat yourself on the back for respecting the first amendment. You chuck the jerk out and call the cops if he doesn’t leave.Man up and delete the comments of morons, unless you are leaving them in place out of a sense of good clean fun. Except my comment of course. Delete me and you are a pinko commie who hates free speech. But then we already knew that…

  4. Nate:I couldn’t agree with you more. Leaving up his comment was in no way intended to champion free speech; it was an opportunity for me to use my mockery skills. I deleted the same author when he made a slur-ridden reply to this post, but nobody has a constitutional right to post on my blog, least of all you. (Don’t know why you have the least right out of all, but somehow it fits.)

  5. I do have a constitutional right to post Haiku. It’s specified on Amendment 1 7/8 in the Bill of Rights. “Congress shall make no law abridging posting haiku on Stallion Cornell’s Moist Blog.”